Source: Know More


Source: Washington Post

Category: Energy, Politics

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

13 Responses to “Europe Is Highly Dependent On Russian Gas”

  1. RedShirtGuy says:

    Why can’t this Russian energy blackmail be turned to advantage for non-Russian natural gas and oil producing countries? One would imagine complacent Europeans would be more receptive to FLNG and LNG/CNG shipping terminals now that the Russian people/serfs seem to be supporting the notion of rebooting Imperial Russia policies. Is it not time for the USA to stop the nonsense with Keystone XL and support our closest allies and prepare for the new reality of Russian aggression against Western Democracies? Finish the pipeline already and stop milking the naive for political contributions. I mean, if Ukrainian and NATO tanks and logistics were solar powered then who would need pipelines for liquid hydrocarbon energy. But I don’t see an solar panels or wind turbines mounted on the tanks in this conflict. Nor can Allied logistics be expected to only operate when the sun shines or the wind happens to be blowing at the correct velocity. If it is choice between Global Warming Hysteria and living under the constant threat of war and oppression thanks to a resurgent Orwellian Russian nightmare, is it really that hard to decide what needs to be done first ? The best way to beat Russia is in the pocketbook by increasing the supply of reliable Energy. Not a shot will need to be fired and the economies/taxpayers of the Democracies will benefit from increased trade and by avoiding another ruinous land war across Europe and Asia. There is NO technical/safety/carbon problems associated with the Keystone XL pipeline or the Bitumen it transports that we can’t solve if properly motivated.

    • DeDude says:

      “way to beat Russia is in the pocketbook by increasing the supply of reliable Energy”

      Exactly. If we stopped using natural gas and oil for the wast majority of daily energy uses and instead used the renewable sources, then there would be plenty of energy for the tanks even with a 100% stop of the flow from Russia to Europe. Hopefully someone will soon wake up to the fact that we need every individual home to be self-sufficient for its energy needs including transportation with no need for an electrical grid. At that time terrorist or militant dictators can no longer inflict a fatal wound by sabotaging or stopping the flow of electricity in our countries or hydrocarbons between countries. But the strategic shortsighted stupidity and an almost religious political tribalism from the right wingers has blocked the only solution to this huge strategic liability.

  2. nmaier says:

    These trade sanctions are going to backfire badly on the EU and the US. Not only are the US companies that make Oil and Gas extraction equipment going to lose their contracts, but Russia is going to retaliate against Europe by raising the price of energy. This is just a very stupid policy by beltway air chair generals who want to mix it up with Russia in their very own backyard. This is just going to move Russia along the path of developing its own oil and gas extraction technology and start settling energy contracts in Rubles and RMB. Once oil and gas start being traded in currencies other than the dollar, look out below.

    • RedShirtGuy says:

      @nmaier: As for “settling contracts in Rubles” that stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point.
      [ pragcap.com/the-russian-default-what-happened ]
      [ investmentwatchblog.com/your-currency-collapse-history-lesson-for-today ]
      [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_ruble ]

      “Raising the price of energy” will make clear to even the Greens in Europe that there are worse things in this cruel, cruel world than burning NG to keep warm. Odds are, when the Majority of EU Voters realize they need to diversify energy supplies every which way they can ASAP, then the Greens/Global-Warming-Movement-Extremists will find themselves all alone out-in-the-cold because they once again appear unable to be pragmatic about Energy Policy in the Real World (meaning they are once again their own worst enemy). Let’s wager that Poland, etc. will make up for every lost sale of “oil and gas extraction technology” in spades when they reconsider the wisdom of their fear of fracing? Greens and No-Compromise-Environmentalists are going to ‘love’ the resurgence of King Coal (back by popular demand) this winter when O&G from Russia is cutoff via price gouging in a move to “retaliate against Europe.” After six months of ‘clean coal’ burning NG is going to start looking/smelling pretty good in comparison. My guess is the first winter will be the hardest, but by 2016 Europe will be well on its way to reducing dependence on Russia and their long-term contracts. After that, and the inevitable large International-Integrated’s pullback [ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/business/energy-environment/energy-companies-rethinking-russia-after-new-sanctions.html ], Russia won’t be able to afford Western technology anyway.

      As for any actual immediate impact of interrupting the supply of “oil and gas extraction technology” from the Western Democracies it is probably not likely to have much impact before this current war in Ukraine is concluded. [ http://www.npr.org/2014/08/02/337251444/sanctions-target-russian-oil-but-will-that-persuade-putin ] What Russia is really doing is solidifying in the minds of the business and residential customers (from lowly voter to lofty EU politician) they depend upon that they are unreliable war-mongers hell-bent on reviving time-warped and twisted Imperial ambitions. As such they are unreliable and untrustworthy suppliers until actual Democracy and Rule of Law takes root. That will probably take at least another decade if the Russian civil society, the same civil society Putin and his cohort are systematically destroying, started rebuilding tomorrow. If it is not already to late.

      Just as likely, if the past is prologue, “these trade sanctions” are not “going to backfire badly on the EU and the US.” The time to deal with Putin and his electorate is now, not later. What would be “stupid” is to let whatever spawn of the KGB apparatus ruling Russia think they can blitzkrieg into the Ukrainian heartland without opposition or consequence as happened recently with Georgia and Crimea. How many more countries will you sit by and watch Russia grab territory from ? Or do you not care since they haven’t come for your country yet ? Let’s see, my family has vacationed at a spa in the country of Wherever-land for a couple of generations. Guess that means I can take what I want from little old Wherever-land. As for the Halliburtons, Shells, BPs, etc in the West this isn’t the first time they have been ‘burned’ by dealings with Russia. Yet for some reason they keep going back. Why do you suppose that is ? Odds are this will prove more costly to Putin and his electorate and more profitable to Western CEOs and shareholders in the long run when new contracts are drawn up.

  3. ch says:

    This is all because Russia is already moving away from USD for pricing energy. And China is doing the same, and Iran is onboard too.

    If you had a depleting resource like oil, why would you ever sell it for USD that the Fed spent the last 6 years printing $4B per day of?

    All that inflation that QE didn’t create will show up in a big hurry the day loses its position as the only currency used for oil transactions.

    • DeDude says:

      Yeah – hyperinflation tomorrow. That is what you have been saying for the last 6 years. Has it ever occurred to the hyperinflationistas (who have been wrong every single day for 6 years) that maybe there is something fundamentally wrong with their models and narratives for reality?

  4. Bob A says:

    Please see page 19 “LNG cost to Europe”
    http://www.gastechnology.org/Training/Documents/LNG17-proceedings/6-3-Denis_Bonhomme.pdf

    US sourced LNG gas at roughly twice the cost of Russian pipeline gas is the answer for Ukraine?
    Really?

  5. barbacoa666 says:

    The situation is a little more complicated.
    **While Russia is Europe’s major supplier of natural gas, they can’t shut the taps without suffering significant economic damage. This constrains Russia.
    -I believe the natural gas sold to Europe is equivalent to 1% of Russian GDP. Russia’s economy is already a basket case, without suffering such a massive blow
    -China won’t come on line as a customer until ~2018, and even then, Europe is a much larger customer

    **Europe can replace Russian gas, with some difficulty in the short run (1 year). It the long run it can be replaced entirely by other suppliers. If Russia threatens the gas supply to Europe, it’s to their own detriment. This constrains Russia.

    **Ukraine can attack the Russian pipeline system that runs through their country. This constrains Russia.

    So in other words, the West encouraged Ukraine to act in pushing out the Russian crony government. And the timing was such that Putin’s options were most restricted. But theoretically, Russia can invade Ukraine and completely neutralize the threat. But the cost would be significant to Russia if they chose this option.
    -

  6. Bob A says:

    http://www.gastechnology.org/Training/Documents/LNG17-proceedings/6-3-Denis_Bonhomme.pdf
    LNG Costs To Europe
    On Page 19 note the difference in cost of LNG from US/Canada (when/if it becomes available). Seems to be a little higher than the price of pipeline gas from Russia. Of course if you’re a country who expects the IMF to foot your gas bill (and every other bill) I guess the cost doesn’t matter.

  7. ilsm says:

    Before the ’80′s US/NATO was very concerned. The plan to build the piplelines and buy Russian energy started before the Berlin Wall went down.

    Generally, large scale ocean transport is [investment and recurring] cost competitive with large scale pipelines……..

    Maybe, in the ’80′s supply and Persian Gulf stability influences favored the pipeline.

  8. Robert M says:

    How easily can the KeystoneXL be converted into a gas pipeline? This on face would allow for the capture of all the natural gas flared offed in the northern Midwest, deal w/ the “jobs” concern in the pipeline & allow fruther developement of offshore LNG platforms.

    I have never been in favor of the KeystoneXL. I have watched the failure of the Alaskan pipeline w/ its numerous leaks into the tundra of Alaska causing problems as global warming takes further hold. Should those leaks occur in a currently warmer clime onto of large aquifers in the middle of our country they would be disastrous. The above potential solution has the potential to alleviate these environemental concerns

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.